WASHINGTON _ Justice Brett Kavanaugh will take his seat on the Supreme Court for the first time Tuesday morning when the justices hear a pair of low-profile disputes over the federal law that imposes between 15 years and life in prison to someone who qualifies as an "armed career criminal."
At issue is not a provision of the U.S. Constitution, but rather how to apply a harsh but vague law adopted by Congress in 1986. It calls for the extra prison time for criminals who have three "violent felonies" on their record. However, the law does not carefully define what state crimes count as violent felonies.
Denard Stokeling, a Florida man, argues that his 20-year-old conviction for "unarmed robbery" for snatching a woman's necklace should not be deemed a violent felony. Government lawyers disagree and argue "robbery by sudden snatching" involves a use of physical force.
In the second case, Jason Sims, an Arkansas man, argues that breaking into an unoccupied mobile home should not qualify as a violent felony. In the past, judges have ruled that breaking into a home counts as a violent crime, but not breaking into a vehicle.
Were it not for the new justice, these cases would not draw much attention. But any words or comments from Kavanaugh are likely to be noted and scrutinized.
On Wednesday, the court will hear a major immigration case where Kavanaugh could hold the deciding vote. It pits the American Civil Liberties Union against the Trump administration and arose from a class-action lawsuit in California. At issue is whether legal immigrants who have a past crime on their record, including drug possession, can be detained for deportation by immigration authorities _ even long after they've served their time for the crime _ and held in jail without a bond hearing.
The federal immigration law says the government "shall take into custody any alien" with certain crimes on their record "when the alien is released."
The ACLU sued on behalf of lawful noncitizens like Eduardo Padilla, who came to the United States in 1966 as an infant and became a lawful permanent resident in the Sacramento area. He has five children and six grandchildren, all of whom are U.S. citizens. Padilla had two convictions for drug possession in 1997 and 1999 and served 90 days in jail in 2002 for having an unloaded pistol in a shed.
In 2013, federal agents arrested him for those past crimes and held him in jail for deportation. But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the "mandatory detention" provision did not apply to immigrants like Padilla who were released years ago. He was released on a $1,500 bond because a judge decided he did not present a danger and was not likely to flee.
However, in Nielsen vs. Preap, the administration is urging the court to overturn the 9th Circuit and uphold mandatory detention for "criminal aliens," even if they have served time for their crimes years ago.
